In an opinion issued yesterday, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a Nevada client had made the requisite prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over its erstwhile Texas-based law firm. Fulbright & Jaworski LLP v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 5 (2015). The plaintiff sued the Texas law firm for breach of fiduciary duty arising from legal advice relating to a Texas real estate project. The district court found that the plaintiff had made the requisite prima facie showing as to both general and specific jurisdiction. Readers may recall that general jurisdiction arises when a nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic so as to render the defendant essentially at home in the forum state. Specific jurisdiction, in contrast, exists when the cause of action arises from the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
In an opinion by Chief Justice James W. Hardesty, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the following were insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over the law firm:
- An attorney with the law firm had been a registered lobbyist for two Nevada legislative sessions; and
- Seven attorneys with the law firm had been admitted pro hac vice for the purpose of representing two different clients in lengthy litigation.
The Supreme Court noted that while these activities “arguably” were substantial, they presumably comprised only a fraction of the law firm’s overall business. Moreover, it found that to conclude otherwise would subject the firm to litigation in Nevada...
